On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 16:02 -0800, Suvayu Ali wrote: > On Friday 12 February 2010 05:41 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 23:23 -0800, Suvayu Ali wrote: > [...] > Okay, I now understand the aspect of "." and ".." being the only two > hardlinks allowed for directories. However in the lwn discussion I > linked to in my OP, one poster mentions the special case of a chroot. > Does that mean this is something the kernel(?) decides for us, Or is it > this treatment of "." and ".." universal? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here. If something is decided by the kernel, surely it's universal isn't it? [...] > So essentially since hardlinks deal with inodes directly, the best way > to prevent the problem of recursion is to proactively forbid it instead > of using external checks like keeping count? Either would do, but I suspect Ken and Dennis thought the "no hard links to directories" rule was easier to implement. It's certainly more efficient. One of the comments to the LWN article also mentions the case of Apple allowing these links for the sake of their Time Machine backup system (I think it's restricted to that special case so it doesn't run the risk of a general-purpose feature). Presumably that's the main reason TM doesn't work with non-Apple partitions, despite several NAS manufacturers advertising that it does. I just bought an Iomega NAS partly on the strength of this and it definitely doesn't work. poc -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
